Commodus Part I

 Marcus Aurelius Antoninus- 'The Philosopher King'

Commodus- Preamble

This is the first post in a series concerning the Roman Emperor Lucius Aurelius Commodus Antoninus (Commodus). I've had to split this topic into several posts, as the sweep of the subject is too grand to fit a single narrative. 

It bodes ill when your name calls forth the image of a toilet. But it is not Commodius' fault. The word 'Commode' did not appear in French until 1680. In hindsight, the young Commodus had it all. His father was the illustrious Marcus Aurelius, no less. As it turned out, Aurelius, 'The Philosopher King', would be the last of the 'Five Good Emperors'. His death in 180 AD marked the end of Rome's Golden Age. The stability and prosperity established from the time of Augustus was about to wither, dry up and flop to the side.      

The Emperor Commodus was brought forth to the popular imagination due to the film Gladiator (2000), directed by Ridley Scott. A very enjoyable film, by the way. The writing and acting were outstanding, even though historical accuracy was a little off. But that is okay; liberties were taken for viewer enjoyment and breathtaking threatre. Russell Crowe played his part well- this was Crowe at the height of his fame and acting abilities. As I recall, the plot turned on the fact that Marcus Aurelius had recognised his son's inadequacy to rule and, on his deathbed, had entrusted the empire to his general, Maximus (Crowe). In the film, Maximus would act as an interim caretaker and champion the restoration of the glorious Republic. However, Commodus forstalled his father's dream and seized the throne through his evil machinations, and poor Maximus was enslaved and doomed to fight as a gladiator. The man, Maximus, did not exist as a historical figure. In the film, this fictional character acts as a dramatic anchor on which the action turns and writhes. At this stage in Roman history, the 'Glorious Republic' was beyond restoration and twas never to be again, from Augustus until the end.

This post is rapidly turning into a commentary on Gladiator. This is not my original intention. In conclusion, I will say that the opening battle scene between the Romans and Germanic tribes was awesome and epic. Moving on. By the way, Gladioli II is not very good.

There is little doubt that Marcus Aurelius was a wise, competent and highly intelligent ruler. He would likely have divined that his son and heir was unfit to rule. That being the case, why did he put forth his son for the purple? Could it be that Commodius' character defects were not evident when young and only became apparent later under the severe strains and pressures of autocratic rule? However, as argued further on, Aurelius was in a bind when selecting an heir. Regardless, at the time of Aurelius' death (58), by plague, Commodus was eighteen and, indeed, too young to ascend to the throne as sole ruler. To have ultimate power and wealth assembled on such young shoulders was a recipe for a 'Shit Show' unless those shoulders were guided by prudent and sagacious advisers- more on this in the next thrilling instalment. The wise Aurelius had already made Commodus co-ruler when he was just sixteen. This ploy served two purposes: at the time, Aurelius and Commodus were on the western frontier fighting the pugnacious and very naughty Macromani.  In this way, Commodus received firsthand war experience and tuition from perhaps the smartest emperor Rome had ever had. Secondly, this would smooth the transmission of power at Aurelius' death. The death of the reigning emperor and the accession of the new was always a perilous time for Rome. A transition, primarily based on heredity, was generally the 'Golden Ticket' but rarely achieved. However, it is worth remembering that there was always a gaggle of ambitious and rich senators /generals crouching in the shadows, ready to usurp the position if circumstances allowed. The lure of the ultimate accolade spurred men to risk all, though most would fail. This situation would inevitably lead to much bloodshed and, on occasion, civil unrest and outright civil war. 

Perhaps Aurelius hoped that his wise counsel and 'on-the-job training' would mould his young son into a capable ruler. No doubt, he would have made sure that there were competent advisors to guide the fledging emperor in his early years of rule. His plans were derailed by his early demise. Even the wise Aurelius couldn't have foreseen this untimely problem- 'Of Mice and Men'. Of course, he could have bypassed his son entirely and appointed an emperor based on merit. This would be a recipe for war. Influential individuals would coalesce and influence a disgruntled Commodus, urging him to take the throne by force. The populace would likely support young Commodus. The mob had an uncanny knack for adhering to the children of popular Romans (for example, consider Germanicus and Caligula). Aurelius was well-loved by the common folk and ruled with a sagacious guiding hand. And there was a further problem.

Let us imagine a situation where Aurelius appointed a successor based on his knowledge, political acumen and wisdom, and the juvenile Commodus accepted this political move without rancour. Commodus would have plenty of assets to enjoy a comfortable private life. Why bother to become ruler of Rome's vast territories. It would undoubtedly involve gruelling admin work and vexatious conundrums to ponder. Better to have a quiet life on a country estate far away from the turbulent political machinations of Rome. Better to contemplate a peaceful life of idle/idyll wealth far removed from the irksome intrigues of senators and the incessant rumbling of common folk only interested in the free dole and blood-soaked arena. However, there is a manifest problem with this scenario. Political reality must intervene. There is a saying: 'A plurality of Caesars is no good thing'. Even a sagacious successor possessing a mild and compassionate temperament must be aware that the male offspring of the previous incumbent is a potential focus for future intrigue and plot. However, it cannot be denied that emperors gifted with abundant clemency and compassion will unlikely remain enthroned for long. Ruling the Roman empire was not for the meek and mild. The meek may inherit the world in a work of fiction, but not in this life.

Best to have a potential usurper removed from the political chessboard. Quietly, if possible. Accidents can be contrived and executed with skilled expediency. Do we remember Caesar's son by Cleopatra, Ceasarion (Little Caesar)? No, of course not. Caesarian was executed under the orders of the then Octavian in 30 BC; Caesarian was seventeen. Perhaps this was unnecessary, as Caesarian could never have wielded political power in Rome. Nonetheless, Octavian reasoned that a man bearing Caesar's name was too powerful a symbol to be left alive. Whatever Aurelius thought about Commodius' ability to rule Rome's vast empire, he no doubt wanted him to survive following his death. The filial bond between a father and son is beyond rational measure.

Enough rambling for now. The next post in this series will discuss the events following Commodius' succession and its immediate ramifications.         

     

SPQR

Don't Fuck With The Romans

The enigma that is ancient Rome. How Rome became a vast empire, at its height, controlling 5,000,000 square kilometres, is a fascinating story indeed. In 550 BC, Rome was no more than a collection of mud huts spread over seven hills overlooking the river Tiber, no different from many other small communities spread across the Italian peninsula. In fact, the dominant people of the region were the Etruscans. The Etruscans were a mysterious people who formed a loose confederation of cities controlling most of central and north Italy. It is likely that Rome of c550 BC was ruled by Etruscan kings. According to legend, the last king, Tarquinus Superbus, was expelled in 509 BC, and Rome became free of foreign rule. We now enter a period that becomes Roman history proper, free from legend and myth, at least for the most part. Thus, we are on a sure footing (with minor miss steps) when we state that by 509 BC, Rome was ruled by two elected consuls. This political system proved remarkably robust/stable and lasted until the usurpation of power by the first Emporer, Octavian, in 27 BC.    

The young republic faced many problems and soon fell into conflict with its neighbours. War was effectively continuous, nay endemic. Each year an army was raised and sent out on campaign during the summer months to cause mayhem. Rome's early army was a militia composed of land-owning citizens. It was essentially a middle-class fighting force composed of men who could afford the expense of purchasing their own military equipment. Roman armies of the period were far from the typical portrayal of the highly trained and disciplined Roman legions. By c341 BC, Rome dominated the surrounding Latin cities and had forged alliances of varying merit. This was essential as the young republic had many enemies. At this period, they were mainly at loggerheads with the Etruscans, but they also had enemies to the southeast (Samnites) and to the south (Volsci). 

The above preamble still does not address the reasons why Rome proved different from its neighbours. However, by 509 BC, the seeds of their future success had been planted. Each of these elements is now considered.

Acceptance

Rome was not exclusive. After conquering their Latin neighbours, they were willing to incorporate them in partnership, offering full citizenship in some circumstances and advantageous military alliances to others. This benevolent incorporation was not something that was widespread in the ancient world, particularly in Mediterranean societies in general. Certainly, the Greeks were vehemently exclusive to their ultimate detriment and that was the dominant view amongst most ancient peoples. Usually, conquered cities were looted and destroyed, and the population enslaved. Roman domination of Latium was relatively benign for ancient times, and usually, all they asked of the conquered Latin state was military assistance. Thus, Rome had access to large numbers of troops, many of which were not Roman. This conferred on the nascent state a degree of military resilience not given to near-sighted, parsimonious others. It meant that a single defeat in battle or a series of defeats was not necessarily disastrous. Roman armies had a hydra-like quality of regeneration, and as long as they won the last battle of the war, previous defeats were not catastrophic calamities. For instance, during the Second Punic War (218-201 BC), the Romans lost 250,000 men in battle but raised 750,000 men during this time and ultimately won the war.

This acceptance of 'others' was nothing new to the Romans. The legends and myths of earlier times emphasised the concept of foreign incorporation. And if there is any kernel of truth in these stories, early Rome was a haven for runaways, criminals and assorted vagabonds. 'The Famous Rape of the Sabines' ended well with the amalgam of Romans and Sabines- what an uplifting story!

Roman Character

The Romans had an idea of the perfect Roman Citizen. Now, this concept is one only reserved for the rich patricians, and undoubtedly, the plebians were too busy pushing the plough to have such high-minded principles. Whilst researching this very question I found a list of 15 qualities expected of the noble Roman. I'll not bore you with a full exposition here. In essence: resilience, respectability, dignity, piety and devolution to family and ancestors. Undoubtedly, the recipient of such qualities may have represented the symbol of the perfect Roman patrician, although, in reality, such individuals would be as rare as rocking horse droppings. Perhaps Cinncinatus and Cato the Elder are about as close as we can get. Anyone close to this ideal, although 'perfect', would have proved particularly boring dinner guests. No one wants to continually hear "Carthago  Delenda Est" after every course.

No doubt the Romans had a practical, no-nonsense hardness about them as you would expect from a rude bucolic folk. And yet we see this strange, oddly sitting dichotomy of character. In combination with flint hard, pragmatic rationalism and dogged resilience, we encounter a devotion to irrational rites and superstition. Not quite to the level of Eastern despotic reveries, but strange bedfellows indeed. Luckily for the Romans, their steadfast resilience would prove transcendent as they would have to draw on these indefatigable reserves in the centuries to come. The Samnite wars, Latin rebellions, Pyrrhic and especially the second Punic war would quaff deep into their resilience to the very dregs. And it was this ability to rebound and continue that would truly define the 'Roman Character' and would prove an important element in their overall success. This neatly brings me to their mode of government.

Government

I've previously written a post concerning the Roman Republican system. It might be a good idea to read this post first, as I don't have the space here to devote more than a cursory glance at its contrived strengths and weaknesses. Read here.   

After the Romans threw off the shackles of kingship, they developed a flexible and adaptable system of government. It would evolve and change over time to overcome and acknowledge new political realities. The Republic of Rome lasted for 500 years and the latter 275 years, in my opinion, represents Rome's 'Golden Age'. The Republican system combined the necessary checks and balances essential for political stability and for the prevention of usurpation of power. It ultimately failed for complex reasons. Even before the frank seizure of power under the Empire, the cracks were starting to show. Toward the end, the Roman Senate and people were increasingly at the mercy of successful generals controlling large bodies of troops. In simple terms, the Republican system failed due to the practicalities involved in controlling a large empire. The system had produced large professional armies which owed their allegiance to their Imperator and to gelt. No longer was the army imbued with the spirit of upholding the sanctity of SPQR. Rome entered into one-man rule. Initially, those men were successful generals, but once established, the hereditary principle took hold, as it always does. Rome reverted back to kings, although the Romans despised the name 'Rex'. The Emperor was King in all but name.

In simple terms: Rome's rugged, adaptable, solid and flexible political system greatly influenced their early successes.     

Roman Arms

As said, the Roman army of the early Republic operated as a middle-class militia. Evidence suggests that this army borrowed much from its northern neighbours, the Etruscans. The Etruscans adapted and adopted their arms from the Greeks, and as such, their armies copied hoplite warfare. Thus, early Roman warfare was conducted as a phalanx but with a significant number of interspersed light troops derived from the young, less well-off citizens. From who and when the Romans adopted the classical rectangular scutum is debatable. The scutum was used by Rome's mortal enemies, the Samnites, but it could have been adopted earlier than the Samnite wars (343-290 BC) as it was a common type of shield in the Latium of the 4th century BC. The Samnites, for the most part, occupied the central hill country of Italy, and a rigid hoplite system would not suit this terrain. It is thought that the Romans changed from the inflexible phalanx to an open manipular system that best suited fighting in Samnite lands. This new form of warfare instilled a high degree of tactical elasticity not given to closed phalanx fighting.

During and following the Hanniballic War (218-201 BC), Rome inevitably developed from a militia to a standing professional army. Training became increasingly rigorous and efficient. The combination of arms and armour, and especially the use of scutum, pila and gladius, were devasting in the hands of well-trained troops. The development of tactical flexibility and flair had its part to play. No longer were the men bunched up into a tight formation. Men were free to exercise their arms to devastating effect. Under skilled and gifted commanders, the Roman Army became an irresistible force forever on the lookout for war, looting and territorial expansion. Few could resist and stand fast against Roman power.  

Conclusion  

This will have to do as this post is drifting into the dreaded 'TOO LONG TO READ' territory. I'm sure there are other factors involved- I'd be grateful for any readership enlightenment. In conclusion, a complex mix of forces and factors would coalesce in the Roman psyche. A combination of political cohesion, the national character of perseverance and fortitude, and the ability to raise large numbers of highly-trained well equipped, professional soldiers were no doubt crucial to Roman success. And let us not forget the sound military efficiency of the Roman military system as a whole, including efficient logistics. I hope my steadfast readers managed to last 'till the end. As always, comments are very welcome.  

  

 

Spartacus (Third Servile War)

   "No, I'm Flaxen Saxon" 

When the average man is asked to name three characters from ancient Roman history, they will inevitably conjure the following folks in their head: Caesar (obviously), Nero and Spartacus. Sometimes Nero can be substituted with Caligula (wot no Hannibal?). These characters from history have insinuated their presence into the modern mind and secured their place in history. Of the three, Caesar's incorporation into the corpus is warranted upon a consideration of merit. We are looking at the rare (extremely rare) individual that has changed history through the dint of their character, intelligence and action. Nero has left, but a scratch on the historical path, and his inclusion on this list is underserved. With Spartacus, we have a different case. Spartacus is remembered not because he changed history or became a mad emperor but because he became a powerful, alluring idea and ideal. Read on and weep.

Three significant slave revolts impinge on our sense of Roman history. I have previously written about the revolt of 135 BC, entitled 'The First Servile War,' on this very blog platform. The second slave revolt remains but a spark within my restless, nay febrile/fecund brain. The first two 'Slave Uprisings' were confined to the island of Sicily. The Roman heartland/mainland was unaffected. This all changed with the third and last major slave revolt. 

The Romans had a problem. Like most ancient cultures, they operated a slave economy, and mainly due to success in war, Rome had a lot of slaves. So many slaves, in fact, that during the latter Republican period, slaves outnumbered the free population of the city of Rome and numbered a third of the total population of Italy. There was always a constant fear that the slaves would somehow come together, organise and overthrow their masters. This was not a hypothetical dilemma, as, by 73 BC, Rome had endured two significant slave outpourings. Now, in 73 BC, Rome was about to face the third slave uprising; the Spartacus Rebellion was the most significant, the most destructive and most successful.

We know little about Spartacus' early life. He likely hailed from ancient Thrace, a region now considered part of the Balkans. According to the Roman writer Appian, Spartacus was taken as a prisoner of war and sent to a gladiator school due to his robust physique. Plutarch gives a different version, claiming that Spartacus was in the Roman military but was charged with desertion and sentenced to the arena. Regardless of provenance, at the time of the revolt in 73 BC, Spartacus was ensconced in a gladiator training school close to the city of Capua. The training was harsh and cruel, designed to instil complete obedience and produce an accomplished gladiator for the amusement of the rich and poor alike. Spartacus, together with others, planned to escape and flee north. However, their plan was discovered. Knowing their fate was sealed, the men incited 78 others to violently revolt. Armed with kitchen knives and utensils ( sans egg timer), they fell upon their captors, wreaking havoc. After killing their tormentors and collecting a cache of weapons, they fled to the slopes of Mount Vesuvius. Once camped, Spartacus was elected as leader, with Crixus and Oenomaus as immediate underlings. They then began to systematically loot the region, encouraging enslaved agricultural workers to flock to the 'banner of freedom'.

The Romans were not impressed or especially worried and considered the slaves as more of a trifling nuisance than a major military threat. Consequently, their response was lacklustre and dilatory. A force of poorly trained militia was gathered under the leadership of Gaius Claudius Glaber and sent forth to deal with the problem. Glaber, with his force, surrounded the slaves, hoping to starve them into submission. However, Spartacus and his men used vine branches to climb out of the encirclement. Afterwards, they attacked the Roman camp from the rear, defeating the troops, plundering the camp, and further enhancing their weapon supply.

A second armed troop led by Publius Varinus was hastily prepared and sent to attack these pesky but annoyingly persistent slaves. Again, the Romans had underestimated their enemy and the 'pesky slaves' quickly defeated the Roman troops sent against them. This victory encouraged more slaves to leave their masters and join Spartacus' rapidly growing army. At last, the Romans realised that they had a serious military situation, as by this time, Spartacus commanded a force of 70,000 ex-slaves. The senate decided to send both consuls (spring 72 BC) and their troops to deal with the rebellion. This response utilising the military resources of the two consuls, Gellius (erroneously called Publicola in some sources) and Clodianus, illustrated the grave threat Spartacus and his slave army posed to the Republic of Rome. In response, Spartacus devasted the region, laying waste to several cities (Nola, Thurii, Nuceria, and Metapontum) in the process. Spartacus, no doubt, realised that his luck would soon run out as Rome was mobilising its vast military resources against him and his merry band. No longer would Sparticus face barely trained militiamen, for now, he would have to face the battle-hardened soldiers of the legions. His force was a mixed bunch of slaves, of which many would have been of little utility in battle.

This host needed vast resources and food, and thus, he decided to split his slave army into two, with Crixus commanding the second group. His initial plan was to strike north, cross the Appenine range and from there, the band was to disperse with individuals striking out to return to their homes. A forlorn hope, I suspect. Though it has to be said, the whole enterprise was predicated on desperation with little to commend it. From the rational perspective, the slaves would experience a brief idyllic taste of freedom before death in battle or worse. Certainly, no rational man would have savoured falling into the hands of the Romans and their inevitable cruel retribution.

Troops under Gellius attacked Crixus and his army, defeating his contingent and killing Crixus. Meanwhile, Spartacus had miraculously defeated Clodinius and his troops and then turned to drive Gellius from the field. At this stage in the conflict, Spartacus made a critical error. Perhaps his victories had gone to his head. Whatever the reason, Spartacus disregarded his original scheme and, at the head of a large force of infantry and assorted cavalry, marched toward Rome. He encountered two more Roman armies on the way and defeated both. His tactical skill was undeniable, though ultimately, he lacked sound strategic vision. Even the military genius Hannibal shirked a march on Rome after his stupendous victory over the Romans at Cannae. By this time, the conflict had dragged on for nearly three years, and what had started as a simple and local slave revolt had now developed into a crisis of epic proportions. The Romans had had enough and placed their armies under the competent general, Marcus Licinius Crassus. During the initial clash of arms, a portion of Crassus' army exhibited cowardice, and as punishment, Crassus revived the ancient practice of decimation. One in ten of the men was selected by lot; thereafter, the rest of the troop beat their unlucky comrades to death with cudgels. Crassus was not soft. This terrible display of Roman justice served to encourage the others and to exhort Crassus' army to display great feats of courage in the coming, final battle. Spartacus abandoned his march to Rome as the way was blocked by Crassus and his armies. Instead, he marched south into the 'toe of Italy' to a region known as Bruttium. Spartus then negotiated with Cicilian pirates to arrange passage to Sicily for himself and his men. However, the pirates reneged on their end of the bargain, leaving the slaves in a desperate plight. Who would have thought that pirates lacked honour! Once Crassus arrived with his army, he hoped to pen in the slave army by building fortifications and earthworks.

However, at night and during a heavy snowstorm, Spartacus and his army managed to break through the lines. Spartacus then made the fateful decision to turn and fight a major battle. It is here that Spartacus lost his military acumen. Or, more likely, the odds were not in his favour, and Crassus was no military dullard. At the battle of the Silarius River, Spartacus was killed in the fighting, and his army was utterly defeated. Six thousand slaves were taken prisoner and crucified along the Via Appia and left to rot at the stake. Thus they provided a stark billboard to those travelling this busy byway. The message was clear: Don't fuck with Rome, or you will die horribly, horribly. Thus the Third Servile War' came to an end. As for Spartacus, his body was never found.

Throughout the ages, Spartacus has inspired the oppressed and disenfranchised. His motives have been widely debated. Was he a proto-Marxian proletariat revolutionary or something else? I conclude that he was 'something else'. What that 'something else' is open to much speculation. Modern interpretation through film, theatre, and literature often displays the disparate/desperate slave group as 'freedom fighters' railing against the oppressive and cruel Romans. Ancient writers err on the side of the prosaic: Spartacus and others merely planned to escape, disperse and head home. Their aspirations changed when their plan unravelled, and swift, violent action was the only option. It seems that the merry band of slaves became a rallying point for equally desperate folk in southern Italy, and I suspect Spartacus became the unwilling focal point for a horde. Did this sudden change in fortunes go to his head? He must have realised that there was strength in numbers, but did he appreciate its inherent weakness. People need resources, both food and weapons. Whatever the group dynamic was saying, I think Spartacus' ultimate aim remained the same: he just wanted to go home. Not all in his band shared this sentiment or goal. Some of his group were out for revenge and plunder- two processes difficult to disassemble. He must have known that whatever he did, the Romans would eventually prevail. Once the Romans finally realised that this was not a police action and engaged competent military leaders, the game was up. I don't see Spartacus as a man of high ideals, a man raging against the system. I see a man thrust into the limelight by the cast of the dice, by chance, a hero. He was a victim of circumstances of which he had little control. He did not write the script, but he was fully aware of the last page. In the end, I see a man who, unlike Caesar, was not about being part of history, just a frightened, courageous young man yearning to go home.    

Gracchi Brothers

The Brothers Grim

It is time to delve again into Roman history's murky depths. In this post, I'll examine the lives of two highly intriguing Roman brothers from the later Republican period, a time of great political turmoil and unrelenting struggle between the wealthy and the poor. 

Rome of the late republic had gained much wealth through acquisition and conquest. In 146 BC, Carthage (remember Hannibal?), Rome's greatest Mediterranean rival, was destroyed. The Greek city of Corinth was razed to the ground in the same year. The acquisition of such enormous amounts of gelt within a relatively short period was bound to have profound societal consequences. This was especially so as most of the wealth fell into the hands of the already wealthy elite patricians. However, the smug patricians languishing on their lavish estates were soon to experience a political backlash as the poor and landless were not without powerful representation in the Roman Senate. Enter the heroes of the story, stage left.

Tiberius (b. 163 BC) and Gaius Gracchus ( b. 154 BC) were born into privilege during the critical years of the late Roman Republic and would become pivotal figures at this turbulent time in Roman history. Both became champions of the poor and disenfranchised as they attempted to engage the powerful elite. Alas, both brothers lost their lives in their attempt to reorganise the political system. The senatorial patricians were not quite ready yet to devolve their power and, especially, wealth to the common folk. 

The elder of the brothers, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, served with distinction in the military before entering politics. Military service was an essential prerequisite for entry into a career in the tempestuous world of Roman politics. 

A Digression is Required

The Roman army of the late Roman Republic was a middle-class militia of small landowners. A destitute Roman could not be enrolled as a soldier at this time, but this would change by necessity. The system worked well when most wars were conducted close to home, and the soldiery was disbanded after the campaigning season to return to plough the land they owned. However, Rome's wars were entering into a phase of unrelenting aggression in lands far away from Itlay. No longer were Rome's wars local and confined to a single season. War was incessant, unrelenting, and now conducted outside Italian soil. Who would plough the field and tend to the crops and harvest?

Back to Tiberius        

Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, the elder of the two brothers, rose to prominence in the latter half of the second century BC. As a politician, Tiberius became increasingly aware of the dire conditions faced by Rome's rural poor. The problem stemmed from the rapid proliferation of large farms called latifundia. The Roman citizenry could no longer support small farms, resulting in the land being bought at a low price and amalgamated into large farms worked by slaves. As mentioned, the citizenry could no longer till the field as they fought in a foreign field far from home and for many a season. When they returned to the farm, the fields were barren and untilled. This societal disruption resulted in a growing population of poor and landless folk who naturally gravitated to Rome. The rise of the 'Latifundia' was due to a series of complex factors not described here. Nevertheless, the result was that a tiny minority of very wealthy people came to own large swathes of land both in southern Italy and abroad and consequently became wealthier. As Crassus once stated: ''You can't be considered wealthy unless you can afford to raise an army''.  

In 133 BC, Tiberius was elected as a 'Tribune of the People' for that year. This ancient political position was designed to protect the ordinary folk (plebians) from the rapacious abuse of the noble class, patricians. At this time, tribunes numbered ten and carried sweeping political power for the year they were elected. Not only were tribunes sacrosanct, but they had the power to veto the proposals of the head magistrates of the Roman Senate (consuls). As tribune, Tiberius proposed a land reform bill (Lex Sempronia Agraria). This law proposed the break-up and redistribution of public land owned by wealthy landowners for the use of poor citizens. This bill was received poorly by the senatorial class as if carried, it would no doubt reduce their own wealth and power. The influential members of the Senate were uncompromising in their opposition. In response, Tiberius rallied vociferous support from Rome's urban poor. Both sides began attracting supporters, which inevitably led to a violent confrontation in the streets of Rome. During the fight, Tiberius was slain together with hundreds of his supporters. Thus ended Tiberius' gallant attempt at significant land reform. His body was thrown into the Tiber to sleep with the fishes. 

In hindsight, Tiberius's attempt at land redistribution was way too ambitious for the Rome of the time. The wealthy elite were not going to hand over land without a struggle. They were well aware that the law was likely to pass, and therefore, in time-honoured tradition, they used violence to squash the issue. But this was not to be the end. Despite the risk, Tiberius' younger brother, Gaius, decided to carry on his brother's noble work. Like his brother before him, he was elected as 'Tribune of the People' (123 BC). Gaius was a skilled orator and agitator, and during his tenure, he proposed similar reforms but expanded their scope. Not only did he propose extensive land reform, but he also wanted to supply subsidised grain to the poor and grant Roman citizenship to Rome's allies. He also wanted to introduce a political counterpoise to the senatorial elite; he sought to introduce measures to bolster the power of the extensive equestrian class. The backlash from the patricians was, again, inevitable. In 121 BC, Gaius was seeking reelection as tribune, and during the count, Gaius and his supporters were killed by an angry mob of senators. Although some sources avow that he anticipated his murder and committed suicide by falling on his sword. There were no more Gracchi brothers to carry on the legal legacy, and, therefore, the ambitious reforms were not enacted. As an aside, it is to be noted that both brothers were killed after their period as tribunes. The arrogant patricians were not stupid enough to kill the brothers during their tenure. The law was very strict about the killing of an actively standing tribune.    

The legacies of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus are complex and multifaceted. On one hand, they are celebrated as champions of the common people, whose efforts laid the groundwork for later reforms in Roman society. Their advocacy for land reform and social justice resonated with generations of reformers and revolutionaries throughout history. On the other hand, their methods were controversial, and their actions ultimately led to political instability and violence.

The brother's saga was a culmination of centuries of conflict between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' of Roman society. This time, however, the stakes had never been higher. The surge of wealth due to conquest and the extensive destitution it indirectly caused did not bode well for societal cohesion. As usual, the wealthy senators were happy with things as they were and were not open to change. The Gracchi tried, by legal routes, to alleviate the suffering of the poor. The patricians were well aware that if the laws were passed, they would suffer financially. And so they funded and initiated violence to prevent the bills from being passed. Whilst this strategy was highly effective in the short term, it could never provide the basis for a solid long-term political system. The following 90 years would see profound changes in the political landscape of Rome. Rome would enter into the era of the 'Strong Men'. Men of military and political merit would dominate Rome in successive waves, beginning with Marius and culminating in Caesar's perpetual dictatorship in February 44 BC. One month later, he was dead. Civil war would follow as men fought to rule. This ended in 27 BC as the victor, Octavian, later Augustus, took hold of the rein/reign of political power. Emperors would rule Rome until the end. Although the Romans would never admit it, the hated rule of kingship had been reinstated. 

Cleopatra Mark Two

I have been known to rehash the odd post or two. Some would say I'm a lazy bugger and should be castigated accordingly. And with that sentiment, I would heartedly agree. Lazy, indolent and mayhap, a tad slothful. What can I say? Guilty as charged. This post originally appeared in c2015. Writing is hard and although I do appear to have a modicum of talent for penning complete and utter bollocks, it does not preclude a degree of lassitude.  

That said, I have also updated grammar and amended errors, sundry. Thus, this post is supposedly about said exotic bint dissolving an expensive pearl in vinegar and drinking the acidic concoction, in one. Tis enough to give, even the most robust constitution, digestive dyspepsia- is there any other?

Reminds me of an ex Girlfriend- her name was Karen

Cleopatra (b 69BC-d 30BC) has inspired writers and artists for over two thousand years. The purported Egyptian beauty, who seduced two of the most powerful men of the Roman world has fascinated and beguiled us, ever since. Cleopatra has become a byword for despotic, lush, oriental opulence and extravagance; a woman who during a banquet with her lover, the sot, Mark Antony, is said to have dissolved a priceless pearl in vinegar and drank it. So what is the truth and after all this time, and should we care?

The first thing to note is that Cleopatra was not Egyptian, but a Macedonian belonging to the Macedonian dynasty that took control of Egypt after the death of the great general of antiquity, Alexander the Great (d 323BC). Macedonians: A load of Highland ruffians that ruled the world, because they could. The rulers spoke Greek and didn't even bother to learn the native Egyptian language, although Cleopatra apparently made the effort, as she did with other barbarian tongues. She became ruler of Egypt after the death of her father, Ptolemy XII Auletes, at 18 (51BC). To legitimise her rule she married her younger brother, aged 12, at the time- don't ask.

As regards her supposed beauty, let us consult the ancient writers for their considered opinion of her said pulchritude: “For her beauty, as we are told, was in itself not altogether incomparable, nor such as to strike those who saw her; but converse with her had an irresistible charm, and her presence, combined with the persuasiveness of her discourse and the character which was somehow diffused about her behaviour towards others, had something stimulating about it. There was sweetness also in the tones of her voice; and her tongue, like an instrument of many strings, she could readily turn to whatever language she pleased…”

Plutarch's Life of Antony 

The only other evidence we have is her depiction on coins and sculptured busts. Allowing for a degree of stylisation, especially in the Greek renditions, a modest conclusion can be made. By the way, the Roman depictions are considered more realistic as befits this most practical and bucolic of peoples. On the available evidence it seems she was no ravishing beauty in the mould of Elizabeth Taylor, nor was she a hideous hag. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. Her greatest attributes, lay in her charm, intelligence and accomplishments, which indeed, were great. How could it be otherwise?

We are on less firm ground when we come to the story of the pearl. Supposedly, Cleopatra bet Mark Antony that she could serve a meal costing 10 million sesterces. This would translate to about 30 million US dollars at today’s rates. Obviously, Mark Antony was intrigued (probably drunk) and so he accepted the bet. The next day she set before Antony an extravagant banquet. He was impressed but pointed out that the meal came nowhere near 10 million sesterces. Cleopatra smiled and produced a glass of vinegar into which she placed one of her large and incredibly expensive pearl earrings. The pearl fizzed in the vinegar and promptly dissolved. With a wicked gleam in her eye, Cleopatra drained the drink in one. All at the banquet agreed, that she had won the bet.   

The account appears in the writings of a Roman author, Pliny the Elder, in 77AD. We should be wary of its veracity for several reasons: Firstly it was written many years after the alleged event;  further, it was written by an enemy who had no love for Cleopatra and it has all the hallmarks of a myth. The ancients loved a 'rollicking' good story, just as we do today, and were not immune to subverting the facts if it suited. The story also suited Roman propaganda in which Cleopatra is suitably depicted as a

luxuriant despotic ruler- the antithesis of tough, rustic, stolid, georgic, Rome.

There should always be a kernel of truth in a good (and plausible?) 'tall story'. One part of the story can be tested today. Is it possible to dissolve a pearl in vinegar? The essence and nature of pearls and vinegar have not changed in two thousand years. Pearls will dissolve in vinegar but not in the way described by Pliny. A pearl, and especially a large pearl, will not dissolve within a very short time- we are looking at days. And remember, Cleopatra's pearl was very large. Therefore, the story could not have occurred exactly as described. The ancients should have got their facts right, we are talking about posterity, after all. This doesn't mean it didn't happen; a few modifications are required. If the pearl was crushed into a fine powder beforehand, then it would be possible.

Having established that at least one part of the original story can't be true, it casts a modicum amount of doubt, over the rest of the story. The story, with reservations, is wholly consistent with what we know about Cleopatra herself. The great lady was wealthy, a ruler in the grand ancient tradition and flaunted her power and privilege with extravagant abandon.       

I suppose, in the last analysis, we should revel in a tale well told and should not be asking penetrating and prosaic questions. Fiction can be intoxicating. After all, who questions whether Shakespeare's, 'Antony and Cleopatra' is a tale of real history? Tis a breathtaking, tragic, and beautifully narrated story framed in lilting prose that, on occasion, inflames the senses. Apparently, it can make grown men cry (not me though, I'm tough).

Historically, Cleopatra was an important character, although ultimately doomed. She played a fine game as only an intelligent ruler could in the face of subjugation to a greater power. She recognised the Roman Empire for what it was. Not sophisticated, politically, or culturally. However, it possessed the only two characteristics that really matter in the world's great arena; political stability (*see comment, below) and a large and well-trained military force. Nothing else really matters, at least from the grand geopolitical perspective. Expanding on this analysis, it is well to consider that the subjugator, the Roman Empire, when its time came, fell more to internal enemies than those without. Modern Western powers should take note.     

*As I'm sure you are aware, I'm not a great one for digression, but I thought it necessary to introduce a caveat on Rome's 'political stability', before I receive censure. The period in which I write is a time of great political upheaval for Rome. Prior to this era, Rome experienced relatively stable political conditions under the Republic, however, it did suffer from periods of social tumult. Caesar introduced a form of stability that pleased no one but himself. After his death, the Roman world descended into civil war. And with interludes, real peace and tranquillity (at least for the Romans) did not descend until the coming of the first Roman Emperor, Octavian. The rest is history- go read.   

  

Gratuitous photo of da missus and grand fruit

Pugio

I thought I would have a 'change of pace' for this post and leave theology and science for another day. I haven't been particularly productive of late as my health has been indifferent. There is a bright spot, however. Two weeks ago I had an appointment with my doctor concerning the seizure I suffered in late November of last year. At the time my driving licence was revoked and as I live in a rural area devoid of public transport this has proved to be a major pain. Anyway, the doc reckons, after reviewing the variety of results from a battery of tests, that my subsequent risk of having a further seizure is low and therefore my licence will be reinstated in late May. Good news indeed.

So today I'm dealing with an element of ancient military equipment that has seen scant regard from modern historical pundits. Several years ago I produced a post about the famous/infamous Roman sword, the gladius. Together with the scutum and the pilum, the gladius completed the triad of military equipment that became synonymous with the military power and fighting prowess of the Roman legion. In addition to these weapons, the Roman legionnaire sported a secondary sidearm, the pugio, or Roman dagger.

Like the gladius, the pugio is thought to have originated from the Iberian peninsular and adapted for Roman military use during the Spanish campaign in the Second Punic War. Also, like the early gladius, the pugio excelled as a stabbing weapon and possibly reflected the fighting characteristics of Rome's enemies of the later era of the Republic. The main enemies from this period were the Greeks and Carthaginians. These 'civilised' opponents relied heavily on armour for defence and an effective stabbing weapon was required to pierce metal and leather breastplates. Interestingly, the gladius changed its geometry in later years when the Romans were confronted by Celtic and Germanic folks who were mostly devoid of armour. The modified gladius become a more effective slashing weapon.

Like most dedicated fighting knives, the pugio came with a double edge making it ideal for close fighting. The pugio came in various forms and sizes and varied from about 7 to 11 inches in length and 2 inches in width. Most would be considered as 'leaf shaped' in form, although this is not uniformly the case. The sheath came available in various patterns. Usually, they were comprised of iron with an internal lining of wood, to protect the edge whilst sheathed.

Although, its form is obviously suited for its role as a fighting knife it has been suggested that it was used as a general use knife for everyday mundane activities, such as scratching an itch or paring a particularly succulent piece of fruit. However, anyone familiar with knives, various, will note that the overall geometry of the knife and its relatively large size makes it unsuitable as a utility utensil. The possession of the Pugio also conveyed/conferred an air of elevated status and marked the wearer as a military man. And to support this view the hilt was often decorated and personalised with, copper, tin and even silver adornments.

Enough of this. On an unrelated note: I purchased an electric scooter, or as my lovely family refer to it- 'Pop's spakka mobile'. How very quaint. I managed to buy this item second hand, although it is only a few months old. As I'm unable to drive it gives me the option of travelling into town on my own steam. It whips along at a reasonable speed and goes for 15 km before requiring a recharge. And it's quite fun to ride. That will do for the short commute to town and make me less reliant on my family for car rides.

I need to force myself to compose, at the moment, as I'm experiencing one of my periodic, desponds or 'Black Dog'. Never mind. I have a very supportive family and with their help, I will 'come right'. So bear with me if my content for the next week or so becomes sparse and erratic in content. Whoop, whoop.    

The First Servile War

The face of a free man

I suspect that most folk have heard of the name Spartacus, although many will not be able to appreciate his place in history beyond a hazy and vague extent. Of course, those who have had the pleasure of watching that most excellent 1960 film epic, ‘Spartacus’ will have a better idea of what Spartacus the man and rebellion was about. This is not to say that the film was entirely historically accurate, but for a Hollywood film of its time, it did a decent job. As for Tony Curtis' haircut- there is no excuse. This post is not about the Spartacus Rebellion of 73 BC, or the Third Servile War, from the ancient Roman perspective. Today, I hanker to introduce my readers to an earlier slave revolt: The First Servile War of 135 BC.        

The ancients had a problem and this was particularly so with Rome of the Republic. Slavery was endemic in the ancient world and indeed in many societies, the slave population outnumbered the free-born citizens. There was always the real horror that the slaves would band together, rise up and massacre their masters. There was no police system in Rome and Italy and even a small rebellion in a provisional town involving a few scores of slaves could do immense damage before militia troops could intervene. And due to the communications of the day, this might take a while.

During the Punic wars with Carthage (three wars between 264 BC and 146 BC) the Romans acquired their first Provence, Sicily. Sicily was a fertile and rich island and Roman speculators descended on the island to purchase cheap arable land previously owned by the Carthaginians and their displaced Sicilian allies. The land was worked by the influx of cheap slave labour fueled by successive and successful Roman wars. As land and lives were cheap the new owners tended to treat their slaves poorly. The slaves were worked from dawn to dusk on meagre rations and the death rate through exhaustion and malnutrition was high. But this did not matter to the landowners as the labour force could easily be replaced.

Eunus was a particularly lucky slave as he had the skill to entertain. He would delight his masters at dinner parties where he would enthrall the rich revelers with his accomplishments. It is said that he was a skilled conjuror and fortune teller and would delight the dinner guests with fire breathing; not a single toga was singed. Whilst thus engaged, Eunus would keep up a constant humorous patter about how one day he would become king and that the assembled listeners would be massacred. For some reason, the Romans found Eunus’ repartee mildly amusing- more fool them say I.    

What follows is a good example of a self-fulfilling prophecy. A group of slaves belonging to a particularly harsh landowner approached Eunus and asked him to lead a rebellion. How could Eunus refuse after the espousal of his rise to greatness? With a band of 400 slaves, Eunus stormed the city of Enna. The citizens of the city were put to death except those will the skill of the smith. These men were quickly put to work making arms for the swelling numbers of the slave rebellion. The revolt quickly spread and a Greek slave by the name of Cleon joined Eunus with a band of 5,000. Other major cities were captured and the slave army rose to over 70,000. One source suggests (Diodorus Siculus) that the rebel rabble may have been high as 200,000. The Romans responded by sending out a Sicilian militia under the leadership of a minor Roman official. The slave army easily and quickly defeated the militia and the Romans sent out a further three detachments; each being defeated in turn (the definition of madness). In this way, Eunus and his slave army came to occupy most of the island and as prophesied, Eunus proclaimed himself king.

In 134 BC, the Romans decided to send a Roman army under the consul, Flaccus. But the resulting campaign was desultory and achieved very little. Thereafter, in the following year the consul Lucius Calpurnius Piso was sent with a consular army. Piso and his army quickly secured several rebel cities and the resultant captured slaves were cruelly put to death.

After his successive victories, Piso descended on the centre of the rebellion, the city of Enna. Eunus’ second in command, Cleon, decided to sally out of the city rather than await the inevitable siege. During the battle, Cleon died of wounds and the Romans quickly secured the city and massacred the slaves. The rebellion in the rest of the island was quickly crushed with a further 20,000 slaves suffering the acute agony/ignominy of crucifixion. Eunus was eventually captured but died in captivity before he could be tortured and put to death.

And so in 132 BC, the First Servile War came to an end. In truth, the rebels could never have triumphed against the might of Rome. But for a brief time, the slaves became free men. Sadly, Eunus never foretold their ignoble end.

Eunus remains a mysterious figure. He must have been a man of charismatic ability and intelligence in order to weld/wield the disparate slave army into an effective military force. Did he actually believe his own propaganda and prophecy? Or did he use his testimony as a means to coalesce his slave followers and imbue them with a sense of purpose? This question can never be answered. I’m of the opinion that he may have truly believed his outrageous rhetoric, especially after his spectacular initial success. It is to be remembered that the ancients truly believed in prophecy and the Romans of the period were particularly fond of augury. Even the educated classes, with a few notable exceptions, indulged in divination.

The Romans greatest fear had become manifest and a further two slave rebellions would follow culminating in the famous and immensely destructive rebellion led by the Thracian slave, Spartacus. Another post, for another day, perhaps?

Eunus statue outside the walls of Enna

Spellification Errors

ARSE

Whilst writing my previous article on the structure of the Roman Republic I became aware of the sorry state of my spelling ability. I consider myself a reasonably intelligent fellow and I’m certainly highly educated, but for all that expensive/expansive education I still can’t spell. This was drummed home after reviewing my post the other day and noting the profusion of words underlined in red by the ‘spell chucker’. My usual method of writing is to set forth words on the computer in a frenetic burst of energy without initial editing. I then set the work down and after an interval, return to undertake the hard task of revision. Several of my spelling errors appeared unknown to the omniscient spell checker. thus requiring extra research.

My lack of spelling ability has always been with me and caused quite a few problems at school. During the 1960s a great deal of emphasis was placed on the ability to spell and most of my written work was judged harshly by my teachers. My work was bestrewn with red ink, exclamations and the dreaded, ‘SEE ME’. My grades were poor and according to the ‘merit board’ proudly displayed on the class wall I was rated 29^th out of 30 pupils. The poor kid rated last suffered frank mental deficit and would have been better served by being located in a school dedicated to the intellectually challenged. He laboured under epithets, ‘spakker’ or ‘mong’. Wonderfully pejorative exclamations and I’m sure my astute readers can work out their provenance. I managed to escape such ridicule and censure due to my pugnacious nature. I have always wondered what happened to Eric (for it is he) although I can hazard a good guess as to how his life story unfolded.    

I have long been at peace with my inability to spell and have accepted this deficit as part of my many idiosyncrasies, foibles and quirks. So, what follows has a personal element of the ‘bittersweet’ and ‘for the grace of God go I’, but only just. Anyone can make a spelling mistake when writing. However, the spell checker ensures that the error does not persist after judicious editing. The following errors are really unforgivable.   

 

I'm a guessing that this represents a Monday morning or Friday afternoon effort. Or are we dealing with a total fuckwit considering the example of the template available to the right? Be aware, keep vigilant and stop being a twat! 

Interesting enough, the old English word for bird was 'bridd'. This is the sort of item that might be worth something in the future, or not whatever the case may be.

Mayhap they are referring to the buggers- A Big Cac, anyone?

Not really a spelling issue but worthy of inclusion anyway. Caveat emptor. I aspire to write like a graduate college. Maybe one day.

A problem of homonymisation (not a real word). I'm inclined to give the harassed 'teleprompter' a break in this instance.  

  

An ancient existential question, but best not pondered whilst at the parking barrier. Of course, this represents a classic oxymoron as a prerequisite for paying the parking fee is that you necessarily exist. Otherwise, there would be no parking in the first place and no fee would be applicable. Simple informal logic, innit?

Deep fried dognuts, yum. This outlet is conveniently situated next to the vets.

There are two warning signs here: 1. the spelling mistake. 2. A well designed 'printed' sign might add professional plausibility to the company. I predict bankruptcy. 

College is not what it used to be. Mayhap the signwriter suffers from a stutter?

                   

No wonder college education has slipped if schools prepare pupils thusly.

Tis enough for now folks. I've a vague inkling I should be writing posts on more cerebral matters in tune with my vast intellect. 

Sensible writing will resume shortly after the new meds kick in. Moist Bum Crust.

The Roman Republican System in a Nutshell

Senatus Populus Que Romanus

        

The Roman Republican system was a rather complex mix of judiciaries, assemblies, legislative bodies, major, minor magistracies and patronage. This system reinforced and influenced the various governmental processes in ways that are difficult to put forth in a post of under 1,000 words (actually 1016). This my modest attempt as a non-historian.  

Rome was originally ruled by their neighbours, the Etruscans. The last Etruscan king (Tarquin the Proud) was expelled by the Romans in 509BC. [As an aside, the Etruscans are a most fascinating people worthy of a post by themselves]. Thereafter, and until the autocratic rule of Caesar (48 BC), the Romans instigated the Republican system of government. The Romans observed the political institutions of their neighbours i.e. the Greeks and Carthaginians and noted inherent drawbacks in the systems especially considering their susceptibility to the usurpation of power by a single individual or small clique. The Roman resolution was characteristically ingenious and practical and involved a tiered system of government, legislative and judicial assemblies.

First off, the Roman republic inherited a system called the ‘Centurate Assembly’ from their previous Etruscan rulers. The Assembly was composed of citizen soldiers who came together to vote outside the walls of Rome at a place called Mars field. The citizens were divided into centuries and voting was directed to military matters such as war and peace and the election of magistrates holding military office. The weight of the vote was not equal and members of the wealthier centuries exerted greater voting influence than their poorer brethren. In 241BC the system was reorganised to give more weight to the less well-off centuries and this trend would continue until the end of the Republic

The development of the Roman Republican Constitution can be seen, particularly in its early years, as a partial resolution of the conflict between the numerically few, but politically rich and powerful patricians, and the more numerous and initially disenfranchised plebeian population.

The Roman constitution evolved over several hundreds of years and most of the changes were unwritten but enshrined in custom if not empowered in law. Originally power rested with the patrician, noble class and the common folk or plebeians had no say in the run of the Republic. Thus, the legislative body of the Senate (300 senators) were recruited solely from the patrician class. The Senate decided national and international policy indirectly, as they exerted no direct power, and elected two officials, or consuls, to guide state policy for a single year. In this way, they had a powerful influence on State and international policy as mediated through the consuls. The consuls held executive power and were also expected to command armies in the field. The presence of two high officials was designed to provide a balance of power and a check on ambitious men desiring total control of the State. Each consul was invested with the power of veto. Thus, State action required sanction by both chief magistrates. A senator was not elected by the people but chosen by the consuls. Once chosen the senators were ‘elected’ for life. In times of grave peril, a dictator could be elected with supreme power to ensure swift and decisive policy. However, a dictator could only serve for a period of 6 months. 

Time would show that the incumbent political system was flawed due to social inequalities.  This represented an unstable political system for an agrarian society constantly at war. In 494BC, the plebeians under arms left the city and refused to fight. Under external military threat, the patricians were forced to create the office of ‘Plebeian Tribune’ with the power of veto over matters affecting the rights of plebeians. In 451BC the ‘Twelve Tables’ were formulated. It provided a code of law to work out issues between the patricians and the plebeians and formed the basis of civil law. However, the patricians were unwilling to relinquish their privileged status of power and wealth, just yet. Over the next two centuries civil strife continued and in 279BC the plebeians left the city for the final time. Further concessions inevitably followed allowing plebeians to be elected to high office and even to intermarry with members of the patrician class. 

Over time patrician dominance waned and wealthy plebeians became politically influential. Toward the later years of the Republic, the distinction between patrician families and wealthy plebeian families became eroded giving rise to a patrician-plebeian aristocracy.  

The middle years of the 1^st century BC were marked/marred by civil unrest and conflict in Rome. With the coming of Empire, Rome underwent great internal change due to the great influx of wealth from conquered territories but this wealth remained closeted/cosseted with the few. Furthermore, there was a need to maintain a large professional army. The old middle-class militia had gone to be replaced by masses of poor soldiers who had little allegiance to the State. The consuls acted as generals and led armies in the field. Once a campaign had been completed it was incumbent upon the general to settle his soldiers with a portion of arable land. Successful generals fostered successful ex-soldiers and consequently, soldiers became highly devoted to their general. A consul commanding large bodies of soldiers developed an inordinate amount of power not traditionally invested in the office of consul. In 82BC the consul Sulla, backed by his large army, placed himself as dictator. Normally the office of dictator was to be held for a maximum of 6 months but he stretched the term to two years. This turn of events represented a dangerous precedent culminating in the seizure of power, after a civil war, by Caesar in 48BC. Caesar became dictator for life but was assassinated in the Senate by senators wanting to restore the ‘Old Republic’.  But the ‘die had been cast’ and the Republic was no more. What followed was a decade of civil war. Ultimately, Caesar’s nephew, Octavian, become triumphant. The subsequent rule of Octavian (later Augustus) initiated the ‘Roman Empire’ system of autocratic rule, initially at least, based on dynastic lines, which would last until the final destruction of the Eastern Roman Empire by the Turks, in 1453 AD.